Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 3,556 results (0.050 seconds)

Oct 19 2001 (HC)

Three-n-products Pvt. Ltd., 3030, Street No. 4, Ranjit Nagar, New Delh ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-19-2001

Reported in : 95(2002)DLT271

..... as it denotes something relating to traditional indian science of health or medicine known as ayurved and such a generic and descriptive word cannot be registered as a trade mark under section 9 of the trade mark act. besides it is contended that the goods of the defendants viz. footwear are vastly different from those of the plaintiff and there is no likelihood of ..... own activities. in the case of surjit singh v. m/s alembic glass industries ltd., : air1987delhi319 , another learned single judge of this court observed that if the adoption of similar trade mark by the defendant is found to be dishonest, it will certainly disentitle the defendants from any protection from the court. similar observation were made by the division bench of the ..... relaxo rubber limited and another v. aman cable industries and another 1998 pct (18) . in that case the plaintiff was the registered owner of the trade mark relaxo for footwear. defendant started using the same trade mark for manufacturing and selling pvc pipe. learned single judge in that case came to the conclusion that relaxo is not an invented, fancy, new word. rather ..... hindi is of generic or descriptive nature and thereforee incapable of exclusive appropriation by a party. rather interim injunction in that case was declined because on a visual comparison of trade mark and logos learned single judge came to the conclusion that there is no over all similarity between the two and products. the defendant's product was tablet whereas the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2001 (HC)

Sh. Harmohan Singh Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-10-2001

Reported in : AIR2001Delhi507; 93(2001)DLT647

..... used by the defendant is almost identical to that of the plaintiff and is at pages 12 and 13 of the documents filed by the plaintiff. the trade mark gpi is deceptively similar to the trade mark gp. hence, the defendant is guilty of infringement of copyright and is also passing off their goods as the goods of the plaintiff. the goods used ..... . vs . thukral mechanical works : air1988delhi282 are not applicable rajai tirathdas rupchand & co.(supra) was a case relating to assignment of registered trade mark. the so-called assignee was using the trade mark. the plaintiff who was the owner of the trade mark filed the suit disputing the said assignment in favor of the assignee. the assignment deed had not been registered with the register of ..... dissolution deed, on the strength of class 2 thereof the plaintiff has filed an application for removal of the name of the defendant which is pending before the registrar of trade mark. for the aforesaid reasons, two judgments relied upon by learned counsel for defendant, namely, rajai tirathdas rupchand & co., bhavnagar v. laxman bhai vensimal rajai, bhavnagar reported 1991 ptc ..... goods which are used in automobiles.3. thus the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction vide order dated 21st december, 2000 restraining the defendant from using the trade mark gpi in relation to the goods mentioned above. the defendant thereafter filed the written statement, reply to the injunction application and application under order xxxix rules 4 cpc being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2001 (HC)

Acqua Minerals Limited Vs. Mr. Pramod Borse and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-24-2001

Reported in : AIR2001Delhi463; 93(2001)DLT203

..... to result in dilution of the trademark 'bisleri' as the plaintiff has no control over the use of the said domain name inspire of the fact that the trade mark 'bisleri' is the exclusive trade mark of the plaintiff.45. the defendants is using the impugned domain name for an activity with which the plaintiff is not connected or concerned at all. it is ..... bad faith.32. however, under the said policy the complainant has to prove the following three elements: (1) its domain name is identical or is confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (2) it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name; and (3) its domain name has been registered and ..... it will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations and also that the domain name is neither identical nor similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights and it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that domain name has not been registered and ..... . now the question that falls for determinations is whether the domain name registered with the network solutions inc i.e. the registering authority has the same protection as the trade name or trade mark registered under the tmm act.15. the work 'domain' as per chambers 21 century dictionary means a territory owned or ruled by one person or government. wester's dictionary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2001 (HC)

Prabhu Shankar Aggarwal and anr Vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and anr

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-21-2001

Reported in : 94(2001)DLT754

..... alleged that despite injunction order, the defendants as well as smt.kamla devi and legal heirs of shri rameshwar lal and persons claiming title through them have willfully continued using trade mark/trade name haldiram bhujiawala with logo hrb and that 'on account of the defendants' continuous contemptuous and contumacious acts, the plaintiffs were constrained to move an application (ccp.82/99 ..... haldiram bhujiawala, 2284, arya samaj road, karol bagh, new delhi and shri ashok kumar c/o haldiram bhujiawala, 2284, arya samaj road, karol bagh, new delhi from using the trade mark/trade name 'haldiram bhujiawala'. the defendants were called upon to file their objections, if any, by 7.1.1992. the order served upon the said defendants 1 and 2 reads:-'to ..... upon the premises till the application for injunction is finally heard and disposed of.'28. before us learned counsel for the parties made reference to various proceedings of the trade mark registry and of the orders passed in appeal in those proceedings or of proceedings pending or decided before various courts, in order to highlight their respective submissions. on behalf ..... , the plaintiffs alleged that despite orders dated 16.7.1999 passed in ccp.82/99 and despite the 'undertaking given by the defendant that they will not use the trade mark haldiram bhujiawala till further orders, the said defendants and the said persons have contumaciously, willfully and in flagrant disobedience and breach of orders and undertaking dated 16.7.1999 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2001 (HC)

K.E. Burgmann a/S. Vs. H.N. Shah and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-21-2001

Reported in : 96(2002)DLT156

..... is invading the rights and spending money on it. it is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive right in a trade mark, trade name etc. it implies positive acts, nor merely silence or inaction such as in involved in laches. if the plaintiff stood by knowingly and ..... no. 2 shows that it was only in respect of licensed products manufactured for export only. article 10 reads as under:-'article 10: trademarks trade marks for exportsa. subject to the other provisions of this agreement and without additional cost of licensee, licensor hereby grants to licensee a non-exclusive, ..... an unlimited time.(v) that clause 4.2 contemplates and admits no other interpretation than that the plaintiff company was required to register its trade mark first and then enter into a license agreement and thus by no stretch of imagination the joint venture agreement dated 15th january, 1987 can ..... mr. sundaram further contended that the defendant can defeat the plaintiffs' case by showing that the plaintiff has acquiesced in the use of the trade mark. mr. sundaram projected the following conspectus of facts to defeat the claim of the plaintiff.(i) that the joint venture agreement dated 15th january, ..... learned senior counsel for the applicant/plaintiff that as regards the registration of the logo ke by the defendant with the trademark authorities under the trade mark & merchandise act, 1958 it is on behalf of the plaintiff and by virtue of the license granted by the plaintiff to the defendant no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2001 (SC)

Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhat Shah and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-04-2001

Reported in : AIR2002SC275; 2002(1)ALD45(SC); 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)673; [2002]110CompCas518(SC); (2002)2GLR69; [2002(1)JCR293(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC285; RLW2002(1)SC129; 2001(8)SCALE350; (2002)3S

..... trial court nor the high court have kept in view and applied their mind to the relevant settled principles of law governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction in trade mark and trade name disputes. a refusal to grant an injunction in spite of the availability of facts, which are prima facie established by overwhelming evidence and material available on record justifying ..... to how the injunction granted by the court would shape depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. where a defendant has imitated or adopted the plaintiff's distinctive trade mark or business name, the order may be an absolute injunction that he would not use or carry on business under that name, (kerly, ibid, para 16.97).14. in the ..... elements of passing off action are the reputation of goods, possibility of deception and likelihood of damages to the plaintiff. in our opinion, the same principle, which applies to trade mark, is applicable to trade name.13. in an action for passing off it is usual, rather essential, to seek an injunction temporary or ad-interim. the principles for the grant of such ..... though the defendants adopted the name innocently.9. it will be useful to have a general view of certain statutory definitions as incorporated in the trade marks act, 1999. the definition of trade mark is very wide and means, inter alia, a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2001 (HC)

G.V. Ranga Rao and Another Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board Engineers ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-31-2001

Reported in : 2001(5)ALD705; 2001(5)ALT553

..... the present case, the principle enunciated therein is one of general application and has an apposite application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. section 76 of the trade marks act confers a right of appeal to the high court and says nothing more about it. that being so, the high court being sized as such of the appellate jurisdiction ..... and when such jurisdiction is exercised by a single judge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent there being nothing to contrary in the trade marks act.'it was held:and it is in view of this decision that we are of the opinion that the provisions of code would have, even in the absence of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2001 (SC)

Chandra Kanta Sinha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2001

Reported in : I(2002)ACC210; 2002ACJ210; JT2001(Suppl1)SC351; RLW2001(2)SC268; 2001(4)SCALE162; (2001)6SCC158; [2001]3SCR759

..... second appeal was not maintainable. 11. in national sewing thread (supra), the case arose from the order of the registrar of trade marks. the first appeal against the order of the registrar was filed under section 76(1) of the trade marks act, 1940 before the high court which was decided by a learned single judge. no procedure was prescribed as to the hearing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2001 (HC)

Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jun-22-2001

Reported in : 2001(59)DRJ509; 2002(1)RAJ579

..... time was inadvertently on a plain paper and there was thus a bona fide error on the part of the respondent in filing the affidavit.3. the assistant registrar of trade marks vide the impugned order held that the respondents were all along intending to file their evidence under rule 53 but since the affidavit was not duly executed, it was better ..... , thereforee, submitted that the registrar has clearly committed an error in passing the impugned order.6. in a full bench judgment of this court in hastimal jain trading as oswal industries v. registrar of trade marks and anr. 2000 ptc 24, it was held that the limitation for submitting of evidence in support of opposition prescribed under rule 53 was only directory and ..... disposed of finally.2. the petitioner had filed an application for registration of the trade mark 'compleat' before the registrar of trade marks. on this application having been advertised, the respondent filed opposition to the registration of the said mark. under rule 53 of the rules framed under the trade and merchandise marks act, evidence in support of opposition is required to be filed within two months .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 2001 (HC)

Cadila Laboratories Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-21-2001

Reported in : 2002(24)PTC308(Guj)

..... 2. the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:2.1 the petitioner has filed an application on 14.9.1987 before the registry of trade mark, bombay for registration of a trade mark consisting of the word 'brofex' (word per se) for the specification of the goods to read as 'pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations' in class 5 of ..... and the examination report was communicated vide no. u/3144 dated 27th september, 1989 whereby the registrar objected to the registration of the abovementioned trade mark on the ground that the mark applied for its conflicting to registered trade mark borofax in no. 12740 for the goods medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations owned by m/s. wellcome foundation limited. copy of the said examination ..... application of the petitioners. however, as a matter of fact, section 12(3) empowersthe assistant registrar to accept the application for registration made even for identical or deceptively similar trade mark. the proposed amendment in specification of goods to read as 'pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations' being schedule h drug to be sold on a written prescription of a registered medical ..... , as he may think fit.'6.2 section 20 provides for advertisement of application and section 20(1) and proviso read as under:'where an application for registration of trade mark has been accepted, whether absolutely or subject to conditions or limitations, the registrar shall, as soon as may be after acceptance, cause the application as accepted together with .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //